SHAWN M. FRESHWATER, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL FRESHWATER, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a dissolution proceeding, the trial court ordered disclosure of the wife's psychiatric and physician records to the husband. The appellate court granted certiorari, quashing the order and holding that absent a showing that the wife's mental condition is at issue, the psychotherapist-patient privilege protects such records, and mere request for child custody does not waive the privilege.
The court held that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering disclosure of the wife's psychiatric records because the psychotherapist-patient privilege under Florida Statute § 90.503 applies where mental condition is not at issue, and seeking child custody alone does not place mental condition at issue. The court also held the trial court erred in permitting access to physician's records without examining competing interests or demonstrating necessity.
[1] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law when it orders disclosure of a party's psychiatric records in a dissolution action if the party's mental cond…
[2] Seeking child custody in a dissolution proceeding does not, by itself, place a party's mental condition at issue for purposes of waiving the psychotherapist-patient privi…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it ruled that the husband could receive records from the wife's psychiatrist. This ruling violates the psychotherapist-patient privilege, § 90.503, Fla.Stat. (1993), where, as here, the wife's mental condition has not been placed at issue.”
Establishes the core holding that psychiatric records are protected by privilege absent a showing that mental condition is placed at issue in the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a dissolution action, the husband sought the wife's treatment records from various physicians, hospitals, and her former psychiatrist. The wife…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fla. Stat. § 90.503 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wife petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court’s Order on Wife’s Objection to Notice of Production from Non-Party. We grant the petition and quash the order under review.
During the course of the parties’ dissolution action, the husband requested the wife’s treatment records from various physicians, hospitals and from the wife’s former treating psychiatrist. The wife objected to the requested production and filed a motion for protective order.
The trial court denied the wife’s motion as to nine physicians, including her former psychiatrist, and ordered that the husband could receive records from these health care providers. The wife seeks certiorari review of this order. We grant certiorari and hold that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it ruled that the husband could receive records from the wife’s psychiatrist. This ruling violates the psychotherapist-patient privilege, § 90.503, Fla.Stat. (1993), where, as here, the wife’s mental condition has not been placed at issue. A party does not place his or her mental condition at issue merely by seeking child custody in a dissolution proceeding. Peisach v. Antuna, 539 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Roper v. Roper, 336 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1977); McIntyre v. McIntyre, 404 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
Moreover, in this case, disclosure of the wife’s psychiatric records is unnecessary as the court-appointed independent psychiatrist can apprise the court of the parties’ mental conditions. Peis-ach. The husband’s reliance on Critchlow v. Critchlow, 347 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), is misplaced as the Critchlow factual scenario is distinguishable from the facts presented here.
Additionally, we hold that the trial court also departed from the essential requirements of law when it permitted the husband access to the wife’s physician’s records. The trial court has not examined the competing interests that would be served in granting the husband’s discovery request, Peisach, and the record does not demon strate any reason for permitting such an intrusion into the wife’s privacy. Rasmussen v. South Florida Blood Serv., 500 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1987).
Based on the foregoing reasons, we grant certiorari and quash the order under review. We remand the case with instructions to enter an order sustaining the wife’s objections to the production of the requested records.
Certiorari granted; order quashed; cause remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Araan E. Quinney v. Quinney, 890 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…ing that in a child custody dispute the former husband’s allegations and the former wife’s denial that she had mental health issues did not place her mental health at issue or constitute a waiver of the privilege); see also Freshwater v. Freshwater, 659 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding where former wife’s mental condition had not been placed at issue in dissolution action, psychotherapist-patient privilege barred former husband’s access to wife’s psychiatric treatment records, even if former wife sought…
Authorities Cited
- Rasmussen v. S. Fla. Blood Serv., Inc., 500 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1987)
- Critchlow v. Critchlow, 347 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Thellie S. Roper v. Roper, 336 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- McINTYRE v. McINTYRE, 404 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Peisach v. Antuna, 539 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)